Evolution

Ofcourse they are otherwise evolution would be a fact and not a theory. I'd compare it to South America and Africa. They aren't connected, but you can observe how they are moving away from eachother and fit together like puzzel pieces. So one can logically assume that they were once connected.

 

They are from the mutter museum established in 1858. Yes they are all human, even though if you'll notice some have heavy ape like ridge bones and the jaw bones vary widely. the placement of the eyes and the size and shape of the skulls also vary widely. From this you can see that there has been great variation in human skulls from the 19th century on, so variation in the size and shape of human skulls is not in of themselves proof of evolution. I mean if someone 2000 years from now digs up the skull of Andre the Giant and the skull of a pygmy, they would probably believe that they came from two different species but the truth is they are both human skulls, which only shows that the human genome has great variety contained in it.

 

Why thanks and I believe you are exhibit C.

 

Is that after you get through with him?

 

How intuitive.

 

I've been reading about horizontal gene transfer. It happens when bacteria and viruses transfer DNA between different species including humans. It threatens the "Tree of Life" theory. Has anyone else studied this?

Does this mean the swine flu could give me pig genes? The swine flu virus is made up of 7 DNA segments, 4 virus, 1 pig, 1 bird and 1 human.

"Michael Deem, the John W. Cox Professor in Biochemical and Genetic Engineering" says
"We know that the majority of the DNA in the genomes of some animal and plant species – including humans, mice, wheat and corn – came from HGT insertions"

 

Interesting, I read a little on it. It seems that it still remains mostly in the theoretical stage and so I don't think you need to worry about getting pig genes but it does make me wonder about some of the other posters on this thread.

 

So if bacteria and viruses can insert genes via HGT into the human genome isn't it
possible (or dare I say probable) that humans can change and not just variate?

 

yes. because it would be insane not to.

I am a christian.

 

and? believing in Evolution contradicts yourself in being Christian.

 

A Christian who does not believe in the Word?

 

I hate to tell you this, honey, but there are lots of Christians who believe in evolution, including the Pope, Orthodox, and mainline church members. Not all Christians are fundamentalists. By the way, are you confusing "the Word" with the Old Testament?

 

Was Moses writing a science book?

Do we take Jesus literally when he says the mustard seed is the world's smallest? Do you take it literally that there is a hard dome over the flat earth that separates our oceans (waters below) from the heavenly sea (waters above)? Do you believe that the "floodgates" in the hard dome made the LORD blot out humanity except Noah and his family? Or was it rain (there are two different stories embedded within Genesis 6-9).

Do you believe a collection of spiritual books more than people who devote their lives to understanding the wonder of God's creation?

What gives you the authority to judge scientists and say they are either deceitful of just plain wrong in their findings?

BTW- I am a devout Roman Catholic (although that wont win me many friends). I go to Mass and Confession regularly. I believe the Bible is the best revelation from God there is, with the exception of the person of Jesus Christ. He was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary, incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Also- It really bothers me when people capitalize word like that, especially without qualification. What is normally translated into "Word" is Logos identified in John 1 as the Son of God. If you say the "Word of God", then you refer to the bible. If you say the Word, then it at least to me, is a direct reference to the second person of the Trinity. A better expression would even be "the Words of God" because the Bible is not conceived as one, but a canonized collection of books.

 

Christianity is constantly in tension with science, because christianity involves a large collection of "facts" which may or may not conflict with current scientific knowledge. Contrast to Eastern religions, which are not based on faith or beliefs. Conflict with science is not possible.

 

Umm, the belief in Buddhism is that suffering is a key condition of life and that we must do certain things in order to end the cycle of rebirth.

Jains sweep in front of themselves before they walk to avoid killing microscopic creatures and building up negative karma.

In fact, and of the Indian based religions that deals with moksha has faith that 1) moksha exists and 2) it can be stopped/we can be released from it.

One of the creation myths from the Vedas is that of the cosmic man, whom when sacrificed by the gods is the origin of the cosmos and all of the varnas.

Do you somehow have a different definition of fact than I do. Just because the eastern religions are more orthoprax religions rather than orthodox religions doesn't mean they are somehow in less or no conflict with modern materialistic science (not saying all scientists are materialists).

 

First, from what I read the actual mechanism has not been proven to exist and second it's a pretty big leap from bacteria being changed to humans being changed.

 

I hate to tell you this, Okie, but Jesus himself said there would be people who would call themselves "Christian" but would not be Christians and by the way that's in the "New Testament".

 

No but that doesn’t mean that where the Bible touches on science it’s wrong, now does it?

The Bible say Jesus spoke in parables, so no not everything Jesus said should taken literally. In this case, while some may argue that a mustard grain is not “the tiniest” of all seeds, orchid seeds being smaller, and that it does not actually become “a tree,” it must be borne in mind that Jesus was speaking in terms familiar to his audience. As far as Jesus’ listeners were concerned, the mustard grain was indeed among the tiniest seeds planted, and it is noteworthy that the Arabs designate as “trees” plants smaller than the mustard.

Darn, I can’t seem to find the Scriptures that say the Earth is “flat” and that there is a “hard dome” over it, may be you can cite them for me?

Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally but that does not mean that nothing should taken literally either.

When the Bible says the floodgates were opened it means that God caused the forces that held the great water canopy in suspension to be overcome and thus permitted the waters to pour down upon the earth, perhaps not in a global splash but as through floodgates into certain channels, perhaps at the poles, but also by means of rainfall for forty days.

What is it about a “collection of spiritual books” that you find particularly unbelievable? The problem isn’t so much not believing “people who devote their lives to understanding the wonder of God's creation” but not believing “people who devote their lives to” proving that there is no God and no creation.

Not what but who and that would be God.

Then I guess my question is why do you consider mankind to be more of an authority than God or Jesus? (Psalm 146:3)

Pick on someone your own size.

 

the pope? lol i wont follow the pope!

 

No it does not, but my contention is that God in his omni-max (a term that circulated around here a while back indicating omnipotence, omniscience et cetera) could have revealed complex scientific truths to the Hebrews through the oral tradition and then the sacred word (in the beginning there was negative matter, and then God said "Let there be matter" and through an explosion all matter for eternity was created.) but this would most likely have lost and confused the ancient Hebrews, who were conditioned by other ancient Near eastern mythologies. If we examine the non-inspired mythologies of the ancient Near Easterners, then you can see parallels within the stories. the difference is that the Bible contains Truth, while the other stories do not.

For example-- the creation stories in Babylon have the gods fashioning humans to serve the gods (like the sun) while in the bible, god creates the sun to serve man.

The myths are similar, but the bible portrays a radically different, and True, theology.

Jesus, in his Divine Sonship, certainly could have, as you point out, used parables with real scientific facts (spores are the smallest of seeds), but like God did during the composition of Genesis, he accommodated the message to his audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

The idea that the Earth is flat is infered from passages that indicate the "foundations of the earth" and that the Earth, like in other near Eastern cosmology, is flat and has an "underworld" in the very literal sense.

Agreed. This doesn't disprove the fact that God accommodates to our level to transmit spiritual Truth.

Again, where is proof, other then in the bible that there was ever a "water canopy" and upon what (other than a firm dome over a flat earth) could it rest?

My point was that a collection of books which is intended to transmit spiritual Truths should not be used as a basis for scientific understanding.

it bothers me when people who have no training in any applicable science critique people for being deceitful or deceived because they have a certain interpretation of scripture.

God gave you the authority to look into people's hearts and judge their motives? this is not to say that we cannot say what actions are immoral or wrong, but saying "this scientist is out to disprove god" because he studies evolutionary biology I believe unfairly demonizes people.

I consider god the highest authority. I just find that natural revelation, that is the world I can see touch taste and experience, also revelation from God.

When scientists find things out about the world, I add it to the revelation of creation from God. What I take offense with is people using a strict interpretation of a few passages that reflect and ancient understanding of the cosmos that is not exclusive to the Bible in an attempt to discredit modern scientific thought.

thanks for the heads up